Imagine two gamers on opposite points of the earth. A signal would travel 21k kilometers. Double that - you want a response.
Maybe it's just me, but if a company has serious $$$ to invest, I'd be looking to position a server midway between these two hypothetical players and halve the distance of which you speak.
A<->Server<->B
This should get around the "double that" gotcha, right?
...Space Empires IV [...] It's not for those who like big luxurious cut scenes and beautiful graphics. The graphics are merely functional.
Makes me wonder how you would describe the graphics of any of its prior incarnations:)
The OP is correct that Shrapnel Games is only distributing SEIV through snailmail (this is not a downloadable game, it requires a CD in the drive to play).
Malfador Machinations is the development team behind the Space Empires series -- the best thing about SEIV is the community (to which the developers actively belong). The game itself is a patch or two away from meeting the expectations of those who have played SEIII, imho. The documentation is many, many more "patches" away from being worthwhile:)
The OP linked to the Shrapnel Games homepage -- those interested in the actual product might be interested in the actual product page.
Rumors are flying about a soon to be $99 Dreamcast.
I pretty much picked up a new Dreamcast for $99 two weekends ago at Best Buy -- $149 for the console + $50 credit at Best Buy for making the purchase = ~$99. Couldn't figure out why Best Buy was offering this deal in my area (NJ), especially given that the Secaucus Best Buy had only three DC on hand and had already sold out of most games and practically every peripheral of choice for the DC.
The big deal was for those using the web resources tied to each group and not knowing in advance that they would have to update and/or create a new Yahoo! identity. File management was one area where this came into play.
Or, the fact that Yahoo! does not seem to have one of the groups to which I belong (and had migrated over from eGroups) indexed, though a direct link to it works. Not a big deal, but my.yahoo.com refuses to believe I belong to said group (even though I did last week when the changeover took place), and so it will not appear on "My" Yahoo! page...
I think the biggest problem is already past: Yahoo! announced the migration in advance of the actual move, but failed to follow-up with a notice closer to the actual move date. And, judging from the experiences of others, the original announcement was not sent out to *all* members of eGroups discussion lists.
I have my fingers crossed that the format of the newly migrated groups will become the norm at Yahoo! -- original Yahoo! clubs don't permit response to postings through email (you have to use a web form to do so), but the eGroups escapees still do.
So far, more or less, so good. One particular list to which I belong has migrated from OneList to eGroups to Yahoo! in little under one year, and I am left wondering to where it will migrate next.
The only reason people visit Yahoo is because it contains useful links.
If it becomes a "portal", like AltaVista, msn.com, or any of the other "front page" sites, people will stop visiting it, and it will cease to be valuable to those who visit it.
Ummm... and portals cannot contain useful links? Rather odd definition of what a portal is. Somewhat self-fulfilling analysis.
I guess we're overlooking my.yahoo.com for the sake of the above argument. Definitely bears little to no resemblance to a portal site.
They made no such claim [to RTF as a cross-platform spec].
"The Rich Text Format (RTF) Specification provides a format for text and graphics interchange that can be used with different output devices, operating environments, and operating systems."
From the above-mentioned link. I don't see how I am misreading that rather bold statement. Or even the fact that Microsoft does attempt to achieve (at least?) Mac/Wintel RTF compatibility. They certainly have wanted to push RTF as having (on some -- very basic -- level) the potential of interoperability.
RTF has already been consigned to the dustbin of history, and MS itself is pushing XML [...]
From Microsoft's standpoint, that is likely a desired outcome or position to take. Legacy support issues do not disappear overnight, nor do documents done up in "dustbin" fashion.
What? The similarity in name to this RFC just a coincidence? I know, an RFC a standard does not make, but it is pretty close...
Microsoft's RTF 1.0 Spec (old) seems to share a common origin, andstrikes me as legitimate "extension" of a non-standard. Problem is, they keep on extending it. This upgrade notice certainly suggests that even Microsoft cannot keep their RTF specs in order from one release of Office to the next!Oh, how I remember this particular set of conversion issues...
Microsoft appears to be at revision 1.6 of their RTF Standard. So, I guess I would agree that it is an internal "technology" -- but Microsoft's declaration of RTF as a cross-platform document spec seems to have found a cross-purpose in their all-to-frequent alteration of that spec.
Anyone care to explain how Java's implementation of javax.swing.text.rtf differs from wherever Microsoft is at currently, with regards to their own RTF Specs? Is it *another* RTF Specification altogether, a subset of Microsoft's Specification, as complete an emulation as they dare construct?
Another element is the perverse truth that there has been no real advance in social sciences. This is important because a more peaceful and rational world would have more resources for "non-essentials" like space exploration.
Surely I'm not the only one who detects a bit of heavy-handed authoritarianism and manipulation in Kubrick's portrayal of the actions of H. Floyd in "2001" and the organization which he represents?
Then again, maybe I am.
I'm not certain that "2001" really demonstrated a world more peaceful or rational than the one we face in the coming year -- it really wasn't the focus of the film (it was, moreso, for the subpar sequel, "2010") so there are too few data points with which to work. However, the few glimpses of the world framing the narrative (or, at least the ones I saw), suggest a world that was far from at peace with itself or altogether rational.
If anything, the exploration depicted in "2001" was carried out for reasons far from "non-essential" in nature... again, another thread picked up by the sequel and hammered home a bit too overtly.
Reaction from many of the New York film critics was downright hostile [...] But audiences loved it, and soon many of the critics and moguls who panned the movie had a change of heart. Two weeks later, Newsday's Gelmis said "2001" was a "masterpiece."
Not surprising, as many of the "greats" never started off on the right foot with critics. "Bonnie and Clyde", "Night of the Hunter", "Singin' in the Rain", etc.
Personally, I'm not so interested in how well the 2001 of today matches with the technological vision of "2001", the movie. What amazes me time and time again is how well the movie holds up, both technically and simply as a vision, after all these years. Barring the monkey suits, of course.:)
Every time I watch 2001 -- trying my best to ignore the downright shoddy mastering of the DVD at the hands of MGM -- I ask myself which (if any) of today's films will achieve lifespans similar to "2001" in the years to come. Or, perhaps, whether the use of CGI in films "dates" them too quickly, blocking whatever vision there may be to a film through experimentation with then "state-of-the-art" computer animation.
On the other hand, I also wonder whether critics of today would be any more forgiving of a future masterpiece -- for DVD buffs, Ed Norton discusses this very topic on a commentary track to "Fight Club"... drifting back to the topic of futurist visions (as embodied in "2001"), have any films been made in the last couple decades which will stand the test of time alongside "2001"?
Clarke certainly deserves a prominent credit, but fundamentally it's Kubrick's film.
My understanding -- informed in part from Clarke's own writings -- is that the book and the movie were written/fashioned (more or less) at the same time. So, Clarke's "novelization" was partly influenced by Kubrick's movie-making -- and vice versa, the whole "chocolate-peanut butter" scenario in spades.
Each "author" was free to ignore the influences of the other. For those who have both read the book and seen the movie, it is clear Clarke/Kubrick often chose to turn away from outside suggestions in favor of his own personal notions.
So, although the movie strongly reflects Kubrick's vision, and the book, Clarke's, there was a bit of idea exchange going on in the background. Book != Movie, but they were not developed in isolation from one another.
...but this one is in three dimensions (very good concept).
A lot of people complain that Slashdot tends to mimic Freshmeat when things are slow... like the "Night Before Chrsitmas"(tm). But we all know the real issue is that the plaintiffs never got their software mentioned.
Take a hint from Hemos: if you can use three dimensions (doesn't matter which three, I suppose) at a time, you'll get a mention. Trust me, there is a lotof precedentsfor this.
US States Vote 26-0 To Move Towards Taxing Non-State Sales... 26 states, with three not attending/voting...
Did the other 21 states go home for holidays? Or were they voted out of the Union recently?
I guess it should be noted that these twenty-nine states belong to a coalition known as the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.
My beloved North Dakota seems to be a participating member. Guess it hasn't become a wildlife reserve just yet.
Happy holidays, and remember: there are fifty states in the Union. Should any fewer involve themselves collaboratively, you [the editors of Slashdot] may want to mention in passing the reason why.:)
Granted, many probably think 3dfx hasn't been much of a challenger to NVIDIA since who-knows-when, and the purchase may really not mean all that much in the end, but still...
Am I the only one that finds it unsettling that:
Once there was 3dfx and NVidia, but the latter swallowed the former
Once there was Creative Labs and Aureal, but the former swallowed the latter
Or is it just me being bitter because I purchased hardware from both 3dfx and Aureal, only to find each company disappearing?
To be fair, I miss Aureal (and its tech) more than I will miss 3dfx (and whatever may come to pass for its tech), but still...
I wish I had the illusion of choice, or at least the opportunity to delude myself into finding it. Ah, well, back to Matrox.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing. Moderate up a link to Carmack's .plan.
It only formed the basis of yesterday's story, entitled: Carmack on D3 on Linux, and 3D Cards.
So, then, how might moderators easily tell what is *truly redundant* without checking the timestamps?
Maybe it's just me, but if a company has serious $$$ to invest, I'd be looking to position a server midway between these two hypothetical players and halve the distance of which you speak.
A<->Server<->B
This should get around the "double that" gotcha, right?
Why, the currency of choice on Slashdot: karma!
I know it's not much, and I'm guessing you have to be close to the cap, but I'll keep you on file as someone to mod up... :)
I was thinking more along the lines of Hfuhruhurr. Nearly as comprehensible while reasonably approximating that classic "Usenet sound".
(Bonus points for the reference. I guess it would be topical to use Google to seek out the answer. Hint: Uumellmahaye.)
Just another to add to the list -- BSODs on the PATHInfo monitors for the NY-NJ PATH trains. Just last week.
Not terribly surprising, given that both titles were distributed through Microprose.
There was even a MOO scenario distributed for CivII in both a scenario pack and in the Collector's Edition.
Makes me wonder how you would describe the graphics of any of its prior incarnations :)
The OP is correct that Shrapnel Games is only distributing SEIV through snailmail (this is not a downloadable game, it requires a CD in the drive to play).
Malfador Machinations is the development team behind the Space Empires series -- the best thing about SEIV is the community (to which the developers actively belong). The game itself is a patch or two away from meeting the expectations of those who have played SEIII, imho. The documentation is many, many more "patches" away from being worthwhile :)
The OP linked to the Shrapnel Games homepage -- those interested in the actual product might be interested in the actual product page.
I pretty much picked up a new Dreamcast for $99 two weekends ago at Best Buy -- $149 for the console + $50 credit at Best Buy for making the purchase = ~$99. Couldn't figure out why Best Buy was offering this deal in my area (NJ), especially given that the Secaucus Best Buy had only three DC on hand and had already sold out of most games and practically every peripheral of choice for the DC.
The big deal was for those using the web resources tied to each group and not knowing in advance that they would have to update and/or create a new Yahoo! identity. File management was one area where this came into play.
Or, the fact that Yahoo! does not seem to have one of the groups to which I belong (and had migrated over from eGroups) indexed, though a direct link to it works. Not a big deal, but my.yahoo.com refuses to believe I belong to said group (even though I did last week when the changeover took place), and so it will not appear on "My" Yahoo! page ...
I think the biggest problem is already past: Yahoo! announced the migration in advance of the actual move, but failed to follow-up with a notice closer to the actual move date. And, judging from the experiences of others, the original announcement was not sent out to *all* members of eGroups discussion lists.
I have my fingers crossed that the format of the newly migrated groups will become the norm at Yahoo! -- original Yahoo! clubs don't permit response to postings through email (you have to use a web form to do so), but the eGroups escapees still do.
So far, more or less, so good. One particular list to which I belong has migrated from OneList to eGroups to Yahoo! in little under one year, and I am left wondering to where it will migrate next.
Ummm... and portals cannot contain useful links? Rather odd definition of what a portal is. Somewhat self-fulfilling analysis.
I guess we're overlooking my.yahoo.com for the sake of the above argument. Definitely bears little to no resemblance to a portal site.
Definitely :)
"The Rich Text Format (RTF) Specification provides a format for text and graphics interchange that can be used with different output devices, operating environments, and operating systems."
From the above-mentioned link. I don't see how I am misreading that rather bold statement. Or even the fact that Microsoft does attempt to achieve (at least?) Mac/Wintel RTF compatibility. They certainly have wanted to push RTF as having (on some -- very basic -- level) the potential of interoperability.
From Microsoft's standpoint, that is likely a desired outcome or position to take. Legacy support issues do not disappear overnight, nor do documents done up in "dustbin" fashion.
I sense the need for a new moderation "flavor":
Unless the above was an unwitting recasting of an unforgettable Simpsons Halloween sequence.
"Stupid bug! You go squish now!"
Don't you mean that Microsoft uses an ISO 8859-1 "compatible" character set, specifically code page 1252?
What? The similarity in name to this RFC just a coincidence? I know, an RFC a standard does not make, but it is pretty close...
Microsoft's RTF 1.0 Spec (old) seems to share a common origin, andstrikes me as legitimate "extension" of a non-standard. Problem is, they keep on extending it. This upgrade notice certainly suggests that even Microsoft cannot keep their RTF specs in order from one release of Office to the next!Oh, how I remember this particular set of conversion issues...
Microsoft appears to be at revision 1.6 of their RTF Standard. So, I guess I would agree that it is an internal "technology" -- but Microsoft's declaration of RTF as a cross-platform document spec seems to have found a cross-purpose in their all-to-frequent alteration of that spec.
Anyone care to explain how Java's implementation of javax.swing.text.rtf differs from wherever Microsoft is at currently, with regards to their own RTF Specs? Is it *another* RTF Specification altogether, a subset of Microsoft's Specification, as complete an emulation as they dare construct?
I'm willing to accept that, but I want to reiterate (with empahsis this time):
Deploying "Overrated" to mod down a harmless 1-point post strikes me as a way to avoid payback in meta-moderation. Cowardly.
I thought the humor outweighed the thread's tangential topicality, I only wished the whole thing could survive intact at "1 or above" for the ages. :)
Moderators suck. Overrated at 1? At least have the courage to mod it Off-topic.
Too funny. You just made my morning.
I guess Fifth Element joins The Player as a Brion James flick where he doesn't play a baddie.
...
Kevin Bacon?
The Kevin Bacon? Who has now been directed by Paul Verhoeven (Hollow Man), joining the likes of Rutger Hauer (in Flesh & Blood) and Brion James (also in Flesh & Blood)?
That's a pretty close relationship to Kevin Bacon, if you ask me.
Christopher Lambert has never been directed by Paul Verhoeven, though...
Surely I'm not the only one who detects a bit of heavy-handed authoritarianism and manipulation in Kubrick's portrayal of the actions of H. Floyd in "2001" and the organization which he represents?
Then again, maybe I am.
I'm not certain that "2001" really demonstrated a world more peaceful or rational than the one we face in the coming year -- it really wasn't the focus of the film (it was, moreso, for the subpar sequel, "2010") so there are too few data points with which to work. However, the few glimpses of the world framing the narrative (or, at least the ones I saw), suggest a world that was far from at peace with itself or altogether rational.
If anything, the exploration depicted in "2001" was carried out for reasons far from "non-essential" in nature ... again, another thread picked up by the sequel and hammered home a bit too overtly.
From the linked-to CNN page:
Not surprising, as many of the "greats" never started off on the right foot with critics. "Bonnie and Clyde", "Night of the Hunter", "Singin' in the Rain", etc.
Personally, I'm not so interested in how well the 2001 of today matches with the technological vision of "2001", the movie. What amazes me time and time again is how well the movie holds up, both technically and simply as a vision, after all these years. Barring the monkey suits, of course. :)
Every time I watch 2001 -- trying my best to ignore the downright shoddy mastering of the DVD at the hands of MGM -- I ask myself which (if any) of today's films will achieve lifespans similar to "2001" in the years to come. Or, perhaps, whether the use of CGI in films "dates" them too quickly, blocking whatever vision there may be to a film through experimentation with then "state-of-the-art" computer animation.
On the other hand, I also wonder whether critics of today would be any more forgiving of a future masterpiece -- for DVD buffs, Ed Norton discusses this very topic on a commentary track to "Fight Club" ... drifting back to the topic of futurist visions (as embodied in "2001"), have any films been made in the last couple decades which will stand the test of time alongside "2001"?
My understanding -- informed in part from Clarke's own writings -- is that the book and the movie were written/fashioned (more or less) at the same time. So, Clarke's "novelization" was partly influenced by Kubrick's movie-making -- and vice versa, the whole "chocolate-peanut butter" scenario in spades.
Each "author" was free to ignore the influences of the other. For those who have both read the book and seen the movie, it is clear Clarke/Kubrick often chose to turn away from outside suggestions in favor of his own personal notions.
So, although the movie strongly reflects Kubrick's vision, and the book, Clarke's, there was a bit of idea exchange going on in the background. Book != Movie, but they were not developed in isolation from one another.
Hemos writes:
A lot of people complain that Slashdot tends to mimic Freshmeat when things are slow ... like the "Night Before Chrsitmas"(tm). But we all know the real issue is that the plaintiffs never got their software mentioned.
Take a hint from Hemos: if you can use three dimensions (doesn't matter which three, I suppose) at a time, you'll get a mention. Trust me, there is a lot of precedents for this.
Happy Holidays!
Hemos writes:
Did the other 21 states go home for holidays? Or were they voted out of the Union recently?
I guess it should be noted that these twenty-nine states belong to a coalition known as the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.
My beloved North Dakota seems to be a participating member. Guess it hasn't become a wildlife reserve just yet.
Happy holidays, and remember: there are fifty states in the Union. Should any fewer involve themselves collaboratively, you [the editors of Slashdot] may want to mention in passing the reason why. :)
anyone who quotes built to spill deserves a +1
Granted, many probably think 3dfx hasn't been much of a challenger to NVIDIA since who-knows-when, and the purchase may really not mean all that much in the end, but still...
Am I the only one that finds it unsettling that:
Or is it just me being bitter because I purchased hardware from both 3dfx and Aureal, only to find each company disappearing?
To be fair, I miss Aureal (and its tech) more than I will miss 3dfx (and whatever may come to pass for its tech), but still...
I wish I had the illusion of choice, or at least the opportunity to delude myself into finding it. Ah, well, back to Matrox. :P
Me,
being bitter